But if we find the theory of historical materialism collapses as not particularly scientific or accurate we are left with the larger categorical of utopian socialism. If we find the term ‘utopian’ unsuitable on its own terms we should move to what it essentially means: that socialism is adopted on the basis of a set of values that define its meaning and counsel action based on that, basically a kind of ethical injunction or a derivation of consequences from a set of assumptions, e.g. of fairness, equality, and the retribution against primitive accumulation. There is hardly any other approach and the cul de sac of histomat’s stages of production seems dated now. We arrive at a communist foundation via a set of derivations, e.g. a Kantian republic of ends must honor the individual as a person and establish his rights as version of categorical imperatives, etc…We move toward socialism then as free agents embracing a blueprint for a juster social framework. To have condemned this as utopian was in retrspect a blunder although the point Marx was making seems cogent on other grounds given the confused thinking of his contemporaries. But there is not real way to scientize history and the issue of values is implicit.
We can base the question, not on utopia, but on the idea of democracy, and democratic revolution. We move pace Rousseau in a medium prior to the crystallization of electoral democracy as democracy to a larger definitional context of democracy as implying a Commons beyond private property (as capital), a full equality of persons in the context of basic freedom, with a constitution foundation that is basically a constructivist version of communism. This approach does not need to stage a final termination of capitalism (save as a definition in classic form) in that a hybrid of planned, statist, market and autonomous or anarchist sectors can move to self-harmonize in a system that assumes basic democratic and economic rights. This can’t be dismissed as utopian unless we dismiss democracy as utopian…